When Luongo was pulled, I was looking for AV to call a time out instead to regroup the troops. Instead the goalie change to waken up the forwards and defenders that there are two aspects to the game. However, the play of Schneider in relief highlighted there are serious issues with the leadership of the team.

Are you implying that the leadership needs a kick in the pants when the back-up goaltender comes in early in the 2nd period, stands on his head, shuts the door, and the SCF runner's up can't put it together against a bunch of 3rd line plumbers and a line of kids? Just wondering, because if so, I agree.

A I understand it, while Henrik is the captain, much of the leadership is by committee of the core groups of players. Luongo, Daniel, Kesler, Biesksa, Malhotra, past captain and the associate captains being primary to the leadership committee. For the most part, these players are all stinking the joint out!

If this is the case the team needs a shot from some shock paddles. Leadership should never be by committee, if it is then that committee should be taking it's cue from the guy with the "C" and not having a vote. If the committee is playing the way this one is, it's time for a new committee.

Daniel and Henrik have completely forgotten the defensive aspect of the game. They were once two of the better defensive players on the team but now are completely unwilling to back check or take a man inside their own blue line.

It is time for Henrik to stand up, take charge and kick some folks in the balls for their play. And he needs to start with his own scrotum. He and his brother were given a bit of a pass for their ugly defensive play in the SCF because of Henrik's injury, but they have taken up right where they left off. Remember that these were the folks who shut down the Toews line in the first to games of the opening round before Bolland returned to the line up.

I don't think the Sedins have ever been all that great defensively, at least not in their own end. They generally don't end up out there having to shut down another team's top line, when they are head-to-head against the opposing team's big guns, they often appear to shut them down because they control the puck in the offensive zone for 2 full minutes. Last year it was Kesler who was shutting down Toews, Kane, and Hossa. There were games where he was doing this almost single-handedly with a hard forecheck and an unseen before back-check. One of my biggest issues with the Sedins has been their play in the defensive end where, when the other team gets setup, they spend an entire shift chasing the puck until it gets cleared or our goaltender covers it for a whistle.

I have seen enough of Cody Hodgson. It is time for McT to teach him that his silly OHL dipsy doodles will not work on NHL calibre defenders. You never know, he may even learn to win a puck battle along the boards.

At this point, I think sending Hodgson down would be more detrimental than beneficial. He was a first round pick with a fair amount of hype and has battled through some injuries and fought to meet Vigneault's expecations. The cheeky bull-shit I can live with if it isn't every shift, I like that it adds another dynamic to our 3rd line that defenders at least have to be aware of. The down-side is that our 3rd line is supposed to be the line that goes out to counter an opponent's attack, fortunately our second line is well equipped to do that. Nothing would please me more than having 3 lines that could control the puck and keep the play in our opponent's end. Put a bit more punch and speed into our 4th line and roll all the lines. Without CoHo, our 3rd line is nothing more than a dump and chase line with minimal puck control. If this is an adjustment phase in our overall strategy, I'm ok with it and patience will prevail, if this is just a plug-in position for Hodgson and he is expected to be a shutdown center on an energy line then it is a waste of time.

Cody has some work to do, but I think he's earned a spot and is doing well compared to the other players in general. He's creative with the puck. Something we're not seeing in the bottom 6. He's a smart, skilled player and a leader who has virtually no experience at this level as of yet. How's he going to get it otherwise?

Meds wrote:I don't think the Sedins have ever been all that great defensively, at least not in their own end. They generally don't end up out there having to shut down another team's top line, when they are head-to-head against the opposing team's big guns, they often appear to shut them down because they control the puck in the offensive zone for 2 full minutes. Last year it was Kesler who was shutting down Toews, Kane, and Hossa. There were games where he was doing this almost single-handedly with a hard forecheck and an unseen before back-check. One of my biggest issues with the Sedins has been their play in the defensive end where, when the other team gets setup, they spend an entire shift chasing the puck until it gets cleared or our goaltender covers it for a whistle.

The Sedins came up starting out as the third line and got their legs on the PK. As I said, prior to Bolland's return to the 'hawks lineup, the Teows line was matched up head to head and shut down by the Sedin line. Interestingly, it was likely the Sedin's most consistent output of the playoffs last year.

Meds wrote:At this point, I think sending Hodgson down would be more detrimental than beneficial.

Detrimental or beneficial to who? Cody or the Canucks?

I care more about what is better for the team and right now Cody is a liability on the third line. I have long argued that he needs to learn the defensive side of the game and earn his way into and up the line up just as Burrows, Kesler, Raymond and Hansen have done. Those who wished to see him coddled on the second line and given 2nd unit PP time have seen his failure on the2nd line wing spot and are now seeing his defensive deficiencies when put into a checking role.

As I said about our opening day line up, our fourth line will be more effective than our second and that bore out until Kesler's return. Now with Cody' demotion, I would have no problem with elevating Lapierre and Weise to play with Hansen as the third line and limit Manny, Ebbett and Volpatti to fourth line minutes.

Meds wrote:I don't think the Sedins have ever been all that great defensively, at least not in their own end. They generally don't end up out there having to shut down another team's top line, when they are head-to-head against the opposing team's big guns, they often appear to shut them down because they control the puck in the offensive zone for 2 full minutes. Last year it was Kesler who was shutting down Toews, Kane, and Hossa. There were games where he was doing this almost single-handedly with a hard forecheck and an unseen before back-check. One of my biggest issues with the Sedins has been their play in the defensive end where, when the other team gets setup, they spend an entire shift chasing the puck until it gets cleared or our goaltender covers it for a whistle.

The Sedins came up starting out as the third line and got their legs on the PK. As I said, prior to Bolland's return to the 'hawks lineup, the Teows line was matched up head to head and shut down by the Sedin line. Interestingly, it was likely the Sedin's most consistent output of the playoffs last year.

Meds wrote:At this point, I think sending Hodgson down would be more detrimental than beneficial.

Detrimental or beneficial to who? Cody or the Canucks?

I care more about what is better for the team and right now Cody is a liability on the third line. I have long argued that he needs to learn the defensive side of the game and earn his way into and up the line up just as Burrows, Kesler, Raymond and Hansen have done. Those who wished to see him coddled on the second line and given 2nd unit PP time have seen his failure on the2nd line wing spot and are now seeing his defensive deficiencies when put into a checking role.

As I said about our opening day line up, our fourth line will be more effective than our second and that bore out until Kesler's return. Now with Cody' demotion, I would have no problem with elevating Lapierre and Weise to play with Hansen as the third line and limit Manny, Ebbett and Volpatti to fourth line minutes.

Cody can learn to play defence in Chicago.

I did not consider that bit about their start as the 3rd line, and to be honest I don't recall much of their PK efforts, though I wasn't really paying much attention to them at the time.

I would say more detrimental to Hodgson, but that also doesn't bode well for the team and it's prospect player. I think moving him would be a better option for both CoHo and the team in the short-term if it can bring in that 3rd line player who is going to put opponent's on their asses on a regular basis, preferably one who isn't too old.

I think the best bet for the team, if we're going to keep Hodgson with the big club, would be to build a 3rd line around Hodgson and see if we can end up with 60 or more goals from that line by the end of a season (I know, I know, unlikely 10 games in). Then play the 4th line more than 5-8 minutes a game, and let them crash, bang, bruise, and aggitate. Hodgson would need a power forward who could handle some punishment, and we'd have to drop Hansen since he's Danish with no finish (<==see wot).

This may be ridiculous, and very Jumanji-like but.....

Move Louie (not working here anymore), Malhotra (the eye), Hansen (no finish), and end up with eventually....

You would have 3 lines that could control the puck and one that could be gritty and dirty. Our second line is north-south, quick, and strong already. Our 3rd line would have some puck control, size, and speed (Raymond back checks quite well and is an upgrade on Hansen). I dunno, just some thoughts.

Last edited by Meds on Wed Oct 26, 2011 3:30 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Topper wrote:
I care more about what is better for the team and right now Cody is a liability on the third line. I have long argued that he needs to learn the defensive side of the game and earn his way into and up the line up just as Burrows, Kesler, Raymond and Hansen have done. Those who wished to see him coddled on the second line and given 2nd unit PP time have seen his failure on the2nd line wing spot and are now seeing his defensive deficiencies when put into a checking role.

Cody was fine on the second line until he was moved to the wing and his play on the 2nd unit power play was very good.

He wasn't being "coddled" he was the best fit for the spot until Kesler was healthy.

Over the first 5 games Cody was either our 4th or 5th best forward and had been full value for his ice time. Last night he was again the best player on his line (by a mile).

As far as him being a "liability" in his own zone, he's only been on the ice for 3, 5v5 goals against this season. His Goals against per 60 is the second best on the team among top9 forwards. His CORSI numbers are also very good.

He hasn't been a defensive liability at all this season, the biggest defensive liabilities to date have been Malholtra and Hansen who have both been lit up at even strength.

I know we have discussed Corsi numbers in the past and I am still not convinced Jim uses a black box. I still believe he generates his numbers with good old fashioned smoke and mirrors.

Moreover, to apply an advanced statistical analysis to to less on 1/10 of a non random subset of a population is rather odd in any instance.

However I will again note that your description Cody's play is more of a condemnation of his team mates. Not only has Cody not cemented his spot in the lineup, but two of his team mates who were pencilled as his line mates were scratched and then found to be expendable.

Being "fine" on a non producing second line is not good enough at this level and no one expected him to continue his second line centre role once Kesler returned. Being unable to transition to the wing and not being defensively capable to play a bottom six role really limits where he fits in the line up.

Unless he can start winning puck battles and concentrate on a chip and chase high percentage style of hockey suited to a bottom six role, he should be honing his skills in Chicago.

I will say that his skating has greatly improved since last season. He will continue to have problems with acceleration and top speed. I have noticed a much more upright stance when he skates.

Topper wrote:I know we have discussed Corsi numbers in the past and I am still not convinced Jim uses a black box. I still believe he generates his numbers with good old fashioned smoke and mirrors.

Moreover, to apply an advanced statistical analysis to to less on 1/10 of a non random subset of a population is rather odd in any instance.

Fair enough, though I think its highly speculative to claim that a player is a liability when he's only been on the ice for 3 goals over 9 games.

Hodgson's board play is weak, but 1 particular weakness does not necessarily translate into a liability, and in this case Hodgsons good positioning, and his ability to move the puck, have balanced things out for the most part.

However I will again note that your description Cody's play is more of a condemnation of his team mates.

Isn't that the point though?

If he is out playing his line mates and a good number of his team mates, then why send him down?

I fully agree that he hasn't cemented his spot and any drop in play will likely result in a demotion, but sending him down after a night where he scored a goal and out played half of our forwards, seems both unfair and counter productive.

If his play drops and / or we get some healthy bodies back then I fully support a demotion. Hodgson is going to have to transition to the wing eventually and the AHL is as good a place as any to start making that switch.

I was at the game. Edler rocked Hall coming out of the zone with his head down. Once the oilers challenged Edler he wilted and played like a little bitch the rest of the game. We should hire Ohlund as a mentor for Edler and hopefully he works the pansy out of him. I like Edler but he needs to bring the monster more often.

Carlyee wrote:I was at the game. Edler rocked Hall coming out of the zone with his head down. Once the oilers challenged Edler he wilted and played like a little bitch the rest of the game. We should hire Ohlund as a mentor for Edler and hopefully he works the pansy out of him. I like Edler but he needs to bring the monster more often.

A good clean hit leading to the hitter having to defend himself in a fight happens so often, and I have no idea why the refs do not hand out extra 2mins instigator penalties on a more regular basis, as it is a perfect example of an instance where the rule should be applied.

46.11 Instigator - An instigator of an altercation shall be a player who by his actions or demeanor demonstrates any/some of the following criteria: distance traveled; gloves off first; first punch thrown; menacing attitude or posture; verbal instigation or threats; conduct in retaliation to a prior game (or season) incident; obvious retribution for a previous incident in the game or season.

A player who is deemed to be the instigator of an altercation shall be assessed an instigating minor penalty, a major penalty for fighting and a ten-minute misconduct.

And for those who don't know, if said instigator is wearing a visor and does not remove it before the fight he would get an additional 2 mins for unsportsmanlike conduct.

In the Edler scenerio there was obviously no fight so this is moot...but there are routinely instances where a fight is clearly instigated by a player (as retribution) who's teammate just got leveled with a clean hit.

I understand sticking up for your mates and it does send a message, but being a clear instigator of a fight in response to a clean hit should come with consequences.

KeyserSoze wrote:
In the Edler scenerio there was obviously no fight so this is moot...but there are routinely instances where a fight is clearly instigated by a player (as retribution) who's teammate just got leveled with a clean hit.

I understand sticking up for your mates and it does send a message, but being a clear instigator of a fight in response to a clean hit should come with consequences.

I think simply put, there is still some leftover "old school" mentality that gets mixed in with the new rules leaving us with confused garbage.

Going after a guy after a clean hit should be treated exactly the same as going after a guy who has done nothing at all. If you touch him, you get a holding or interference call. If the game is stopped because you can't let it go, call a delay of game. Penalties get called for far less.